Really Joan Crockatt?

Amidst the spending scandal rocking the Federal Conservative Government this week, Joan Crockatt, Calgary Centre MP, went on Twitter with the following to say:

"Our govt has the highest ethical standards demonstrated by 3 resignations: 2 from Senate caucus & the PM chief of staff."

Now, when questioned about her statement, she replied by stating "those whose actions don't stand up to scrutiny, resign. Unlike the opposition." You can read the entire Twitter feed here.

There are only three reasons why Crockatt would say such a thing, and stand behind it, and all three options are a sad testament to the state of our Federal politics at the moment...

1. She actually believes it which means that we have an MP who thinks it's OK to act unethically as long as you resign when it's done which means that perhaps people should pay closer attention to her.
2. She thinks that the Canadian public is stupid and will go along with such a ridiculous statement which means that she isn't taking her job seriously.
3. She's just "towing the party line" which means that she doesn't care about her constituency at all and will just do what her great leader tells her too.

If Joan Crockatt is your MP, or even if she isn't, you should tell her what you think about how the Government is behaving lately and demand that she actually supports Calgary Centre and not unethical politicians!

To read more about the latest scandal, check out the following:

• Damning findings removed from Sen. Mike Duffy's audit report: documents
• Harper cheif of staff resigns amid Senate expense scandal
• Pamela Walin forced out of Tory caucus over preliminary audit results
• Senator Mike Duffy's far and sudden fall
• Stephen Harper's right hand man resigns over expense crisis

Canada-China FIPA not acceptable!

MPs will be voting in a few hours on an NDP motion calling on the Canadian Government to not ratify the Canada-China Foreign Investment and Protection Agreement (FIPA). This agreement was essentially negotiated behind closed doors (surprise, surprise) and opposition critics say it "contains significant gaps and provides few benefits for Canada (CBC News)."

Unfortunately, this motion will most likely be defeated because of the Conservative majority which essentially means that corporations in either Canada or China will be granted rights to challenge government policies that interfere with corporate profits. That means if policies protecting our health and environment get in the way of profit, they can be challenged! Also, once ratified, this agreement will be in place for a minimum of 30 years which means we're stuck with it for a while. To give you a glimpse of what this could mean, there is currently a US company suing Canada for a moratorium Quebec has placed on fracking. It is beyond ridiculous that a corporation can sue a government for protecting it's citizens because it impedes their profit. To make matters worse, it looks as though the Liberals are going to vote with the conservatives on this motion.

In conclusion, agreements such as this, with any country, undermine Canadian democracy and it is not acceptable. We, as Canadians should be more informed and start speaking up against deals such as this! Let your MP know that you are opposed to agreements like this and that you want a more transparent government!

To read more about this issue, check out the following:

• Action Alert: Put a stop to the Canada-China FIPA!
• Canada-China FIPA: The Facts
• Delayed China trade deal reflects Tory dissent, NDP says
• Parliament debates NDP motion to defeat FIPA
• Apparently, we can put a price on democracy

"You don't know what they're doing in the kitchen."

In response to a gay couple closing their Morris, MB restaurant, after only 4 months, due to excessive homophobic comments and behaviour, one local restaurant owner, George Lfantis, said "a lot of people don't like it, you don't know what they're doing in the kitchen." That's right George, we don't know what they're doing in the kitchen. Actually, come to think of it, we don't know what you're doing in the kitchen either. In fact, we don't know what anyone is doing in the kitchen of a restaurant, it's a risk you take when you eat at a restaurant. What a ridiculous thing for a restaurant owner to say.

Perhaps people should be more concerned about the quality of the restaurant food they eat or the cleanliness of the kitchen it was prepared in rather than the sexual orientation of the chef.

To read more about this story, check out the following:

• http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/03/slew-of-homophoic-insults-force-gay-restaurant-owners-in-small-manitoba-town-to-close-up-shop/
• http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/homophobia-forcing-gay-owners-of-manitoba-restaurant-out-of-business-1.1221301
• http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2013/04/03/mb-morris-apology-press-release-manitoba.html

Excessive force much?

I'm not sure what this guy said or did to these security guards at Chinook Mall, but based on their reaction, it must have been pretty bad. Oh wait, he was sitting on a broken escalator - but that can't be it! I also heard he talked back to them - hmm, that doesn't sound right either. He does have some neck tattoos - nope, still doesn't explain it. Whatever he did, did it actually warrant having 5 security guards at one point holding him down? Did what he said deserve getting punched repeatedly while he was being held down? Did what he said to them mean he should have cuts and bruises? I'm not sure it did...

Now, I will admit that I haven't heard all sides of the story, and if this man was physically threatening or harmful in some way, I will take back my comments, but based on what the victim and eye-witness said and what I saw on the YouTube video, a few people were wrong here, and it doesn't seem like the victim was one of them. Thankfully, this ridiculous, excessive behaviour has caused at least one security guard to lose his job, and Chinook Mall and the Police are investigating the altercation further, so at least there's that...I think.

Take a look at the video and judge for yourself. 

Greedy jerks!

I recently bought a ticket to a music festival, but my friend missed out on getting a ticket because it sold out in 2 hours! Now, because I'm a good friend (and I really want her to come with me), I've been scouring the Internet looking for tickets for sale on her behalf, and I find myself frustrated and discouraged - not because there aren't tickets for sale, but because most people are selfishly trying to sell their tickets for hundreds of dollars more than they are worth. The tickets are already $350 which is not cheap, and to take advantage of a fellow music lover, who just wants the chance to see an amazing show is not only ridiculous, but greedy as well. If you paid $350, then you should sell them for $350. I just saw an ad that was selling a pair of tickets for $1000. That's a $300 profit for nothing. Sure, that person had to go to the trouble of purchasing their tickets on ticketmaster which we all know is exhausting, and then they had to make a Kijiji ad which I'm sure was also quite laborious as well, so of course they deserve $300 for those few minutes they spent on the entire endeavour. To this person, and all others who try to make money on the unlucky, you should be ashamed of yourselves!

I urge all of you music lovers to not give in to the selfishness of these scalpers. Wait it out until these people are desperate to get rid of their tickets and then buy them for less than they're worth. Maybe next time, they'll come to their senses and sell their tickets at a fair price.

For some tips on how to deal with scalpers in person, read this.

Think before you speak!

It almost seems too obvious to write about how ridiculous Tom Flanagan's comments about child pornography were yesterday in Lethbridge, Alberta. In response to a question about a statement he made about that subject in 2009, he responded by saying "I certainly have no sympathy for child molesters, but I do have some grave doubts about putting people in jail because of their taste in pictures." He then went on to say "it is a real issue of personal liberty, to what extent we put people in jail for doing something in which they do not harm another person." I guess I define personal liberty different than Tom. Oh wait, so does the rest of the world! According to Webster, personal liberty is defined as "the freedom of the individual to to as he pleases limited only by the authority of politically organized society to regulate his actions to secure the public health, safety, or morals of other recognized social interests." To me, that means to abet child pornagraphers by looking at their pictures, means that you are not securing that child's health or safety and therefore, should be punished!

Sadly, this isn't the only idiotic thing Tom Flanagan has said. In 2010, he advocated the assassination of WikLeaks founder Julian Assange. To make matters worse, this man used to advise our Prime Minister, and ran the campaign of the Wild Rose party in the last Alberta election and has been responsible for teaching young minds at the University of Calgary as a political science professor. Flanagan has since apologized, and the PMO, Wildrose Party and University of Calgary have all issued statements denouncing his remarks. That said, I'm still not sure anybody should be listening to or learning from Tom Flanagan...

And the debate begins again...

With the most recent mass shooting in the States, there has been more and more talk of firmer gun control - and the debate begins again. Before I begin, I'd like to state that I am obviously biased in this discussion as I don't own a gun, will probably never own a gun, don't believe that the average person should have a gun and am Canadian. I'm not going to bore everyone with all of the same old statistics that we've all heard before, for those, you can go watch "Bowling for Columbine" or read a newspaper or watch the news these days and you'll come across plenty of reasons why gun control is important, in fact, Neil Macdonald summed it all up very well on CBC news the other day (read it here). All I'm going to say is this, if you think you "have the right to bear arms", go right ahead and keep your shotgun in your basement, but if you want to argue with me that you should own a gun that is designed solely for the purpose of killing people, quickly and efficiently, then you are ridiculous. The gun used in that shooting in Connecticut was not designed for self defense or hunting dear, it was designed to kill. What gives anyone the right to do that?